They really might impeach Trump after all

The worst political class in history. Only seek to protect themselves. Public interest seems far far from anything they do. Joe Biden used his influence as Vice President to gain a financial payoff for his son. The Democrats being as corrupt as they are see nothing there worth mentioning, but on this basis they may try to impeach PDT. This is from Powerline for some background.

Trump, for his part, pushed his chips into the middle of the table by announcing that he will release an unredacted transcript of his conversation with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, tomorrow. I think we can assume that the transcript will not reflect particularly badly on Trump.

The Ukraine “scandal,” whatever it proves to be, has serious potential to boomerang on the Democrats, since we know for sure that Joe Biden, as vice president, did precisely the worst thing that Trump can be accused of. By his own account, he pulled a $1 billion loan guarantee to force Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a company that paid Biden’s son Hunter $600,000 a year for…what? Influence, presumably. Hunter had nothing else to sell.

The rest is from the pro-Democrat Drudge.

Republican Senate Passes Unanimous Resolution Demanding Whistleblower Complaint...
White House preparing to release... Developing...
Executive privilege battle looms...
More Dems back impeachment...
186 and counting...
Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton... and Trump?
FRESHMEN: These allegations are threat to all we have sworn to protect...
NAPOLITANO: IS IT A CRIME?
President will now go to war against intelligence community...
Pelosi, tepid no more!
'Witch Hunt garbage'...
RISKY!


IMPEACHMENT 2019

This entry was posted in American politics. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to They really might impeach Trump after all

  1. stackja

    Dems last attempt at getting DT?
    USA voters have to decide are Dems worth having existing as a party?

  2. mh

    I’m seeing a Democrat wipe out in 2020.

  3. stackja

    Drudge broke dress story.
    Now sold out. Why? Dems paying more?

  4. Elizabeth (Lizzie) Beare

    Just like Brexit. The elites can’t bear to be thwarted. Maybe Trump should start to to dig hard on some key democrats in return.

    Democracy has never been weaker than it is now

  5. mh

    Trump 2020 market price move: 2.05 out to 2.10

    Good times.

  6. Tom

    The 2020 race could have been close until today. Now it will be a Democratic Party wipeout. And the Dems did it to themselves unaided.

    Trump has the divine ability to force his political enemies into making catastrophic mistakes.

  7. C.L.

    They really might impeach Trump after all.

    So what?
    I don’t exactly get what the alleged infraction is in relation to UKWAINE.
    Vice-President Biden took the biggest bribe in US political history and Trump supposedly asked Ukraine to look into it.
    Um … That mutt won’t hunt. It won’t even get off it’s dog bed and bark at the postman.

  8. stevem

    I wonder if Trump himself ordered the “whistle blower” to report a false story about Trump pressuring the Ukraine over Biden jr in order to get the Democrats so shoot themselves in the foot.

  9. Karabar

    Depending on how closely related this to the Uranium 1 scandal, this fiasco might be used to really sink the dummycrats.

  10. Zatara

    The infraction is that he beat Shillary in 2016.

    There is no Trump/Ukraine infraction. This is a desperate last-gasp attempt at Democrat relevancy.

    To clarify something, there STILL isn’t a formal Impeachment process going on. Less than 2/3 of House Democrats want anything to do with Impeachment because they know it is radioactive and career-ending for them. So Pelosi doesn’t dare bring it to the floor for the vote to make it a formal process.

  11. Rohan

    Could it be that Pelosi is using this as a ploy to destroy Biden’s 2020 bid, in addition to damaging or ousting Trump?

    She could be playing her cards so that even if she achieves 50% of that goal, she still wins. Who is she backing for selection for POTUS contender? Pochahontus?

  12. Mother Lode

    The Dems are going nuts. They have stormed to the left to push AOC off the frontpages (when was the last story you heard about her?), but in doing so they have abandoned a vast swathe of Democrat voters.

    I would not be surprised if, in 2020, a lot of traditional Democrats don’t bother to turn up.

    Oh, there will be a lot of people who will be dutifully fanned into a fury against Trump by fake news stories and whatnot, but they will have less to vote for.

    This impeachment is just going to fizzle out. I would once have thought that the questions it raises but does not bother answering, and everything of which Trump is not explicitly proven innocent, would give them their pantomime props to play out their great moral histrionics – but look how quickly Mueller’s report disappeared after it was realised there was nothing in it.

  13. Arky

    Don’t be so sure this will damage Democrats in 2020.
    Remember the Kavanaugh crap before last years election? How absurd the allegations were? How bad the whole circus seemed to you? That ridiculous woman with the silly glasses and fake little girl voice? Then at the election dems took the reps.
    Don’t underestimate how dumbed down and bubble bound a large chunk of the population, and how different factions of media are all about polarising and firing up both sides with fear and slanted reporting.

  14. FelixKruell

    CL:

    I don’t exactly get what the alleged infraction is in relation to UKWAINE.

    The allegation is that he sought help from foreign third parties (Ukraine) to dig dirt on Biden (to help get re-elected) in return for promises in relation to $250m of security aid.

    If all of that is true (and the transcripts should help us figure that out), then it’s potentially a breach of federal campaign finance laws. Which have been a bit of a problem for Trump in the past too.

  15. Nothing burger yet again.
    People are sick and tired of two things…..Socialist Democrats and the Media.
    Nothing but nothing they say will sway the public from here on out. People have stopped listening.
    Trump will need to shoot a kid on 1600 Penn for the voters to abandon him.
    Trump (thus far) will win at least 326 Electoral College votes.
    His biggest danger is the Fed and other financial institutions sabotaging the economy.

  16. stackja

    FK – DT election problem? He won!

  17. FelixKruell

    Stjacka:

    DT election problem? He won!

    Not a DT election problem. A DT campaign finance law problem.

    As the head of the FEC put it:

    [Federal Election Commission head Ellen] Weintraub tried to clarify: “Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

    “This is not a novel concept,” she wrote. “Election intervention from foreign governments has been considered unacceptable since the founding of our nation.”

    Doesn’t stop him winning an election (it’s designed to help in fact!). But still against the law. Which kinda matters

  18. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

    Great.

    We have the power to remove US Presidents at will.

    Damn we’re powerful.

  19. The BigBlueCat

    Surely Trump (via the AG) will go after Hillary, Comey, et al for their blatantly illegal activities and blatant lying under oath.

    I’ve heard views that this action by the Demonrats will forever destroy foreign leaders’ trust in whoever is POTUS, since any conversation with POTUS will be transcripted and subject to potential leaking.

    The Demonrats are hoeing a furrow they really don’t want to hoe. Mueller couldn’t lay a glove on him, Nadler can’t lay a glove on him, and Pelosi is not a leader – she is threatened by her party.

    I’m doubting the impeachment investigation will reveal anything impeachable. Time will tell.

  20. Zatara

    If by “campaign finance law problem” you mean he was convicted of a campaign finance law violation then you are wrong because he wasn’t. In fact he wasn’t even charged with such.

    As to:

    It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

    Perhaps you should catch up on that whole Mueller report thing. The one that cleared him of any such false accusations.

  21. FelixKruell

    Zatara:

    If by “campaign finance law problem” you mean he was convicted of a campaign finance law violation then you are wrong because he wasn’t

    No, I meant those in his employ were convicted of campaign finance law breaches in relation to his campaign.

    Perhaps you should catch up on that whole Mueller report thing. The one that cleared him of any such false accusations.

    I don’t believe Muller inquired about the current Ukraine call, that took place many months after the Muller report was finalised.

  22. Arky

    He isn’t contending an election against Biden, you fool.

  23. Tim Neilson

    It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

    But what “of value” is Trump being accused of soliciting?

  24. stackja

    FK – Still digging the hole.

  25. FelixKruell

    Stjacka:

    Seems like DT is the one digging the hole…again.

    But there I go, being a conservative who values our laws and institutions again, and expects our politicians to do the same. Silly me.

  26. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    But what “of value” is Trump being accused of soliciting?

    Dirt on his likely opponent at the next election.

  27. calli

    And the Super Conservative Dynamic Duo Tag Team will commence in 3…2…

    Seriously.

  28. Empire 5:5

    If all of that is true (and the transcripts should help us figure that out), then it’s potentially a breach of federal campaign finance laws. Which have been a bit of a problem for Trump in the past too.

    When? What was the infraction?

  29. Empire 5:5

    Dirt on his likely opponent at the next election.

    He already has the dirt. It isn’t even classified. Biden has previously admitted he did exactly what 45 is being accused of (with no evidence). The documentary evidence of Hunter Biden’s activities is open source, Ukraine and China.

    How did you construct your narrative?

  30. Empire 5:5

    I’m doubting the impeachment investigation will reveal anything impeachable. Time will tell.

    They don’t have anything. Nancy said as much “we’ll fill in the details later”.

    The Ukraine allegation is hearsay from an anonymous WB who wasn’t on the call. WB lawyer is Killary/Chuck protegé. WB found not credible due to bias by ODNI.

    It’s a circus.

  31. FelixKruell

    Empire:

    When? What was the infraction?

    His lawyer/fixer Cohen was convicted of campaign finance violations.

    He already has the dirt.

    The allegation is he asked for more. We will find out whether that’s the case when he releases the transcript of the call.

  32. Iampeter

    I’d be very surprised if they actually impeached Trump.
    He has been a very left wing President. Certainly more left wing than Obama.

    Democrats will get a lot more done with Trump and Republicans “running things” then they would with them in opposition.

    Given the staggering corruption of the Trump administration, that makes Clintons look like boy scouts, he will be the Hillary candidate in the upcoming election.
    The pretzels that conservatives will have to go to in order to support Trump having opposed Hillary will have to be seen to be believed.
    His blundering may have even unintentionally saved Biden.

    I think this is just political theater.

  33. Empire 5:5

    The allegation is he asked for more. We will find out whether that’s the case when he releases the transcript of the call.

    Why would he ask for more? His personal lawyer has been investigating since late 2018 and has laid out the dirt on cable for 24 hours straight.

    How do you construct your narrative? It doesn’t make sense.

  34. FelixKruell

    Empire:

    Why would he ask for more? His personal lawyer has been investigating since late 2018 and has laid out the dirt on cable for 24 hours straight.

    How do you construct your narrative? It doesn’t make sense.

    You’re expecting Trump to act rationally? How quaint.

    I don’t have a narrative. Someone asked what the allegation was. So I explained. We have no idea yet whether there’s substance to the allegation.

    Although Trump and Giuliani have seemingly already acknowledged much of the allegation is true. Personally I’ll wait for the transcript to judge.

  35. Squirrel

    Unless the transcript, or other (genuine) evidence reveals a very large smoking gun, the Senate won’t remove Trump, and even if it came to that, the Democrats may well find Pence somewhat harder to campaign against than Trump.

    As much as anything, this move is probably about the pressures on Pelosi, and the Democrats’ real views about their potential candidates for 2o20.

  36. Nob

    I imagine Trump is doing with impeachment what he did with Russia and Obama did with birther allegations.

    Let them run with it because the net damage is to his opponents.

  37. slackster

    Its worthwhile catching some of the late night news show is the US even though the hosts don’t know when the shut up

    Here is Rudy Guiliani spelling out whats happening

  38. Fat Tony

    What amuses me is that in the presidential debates, Killary made a real big deal about whether or not Trump would accept the results of the election.

  39. Empire 5:5

    You’re expecting Trump to act rationally? How quaint.

    I get that you are a low density guy who watches The News, but considering the gargantuan information asymmetry that exists between a man with a US Majestic security clearance (+undisclosed objectives) and some bloke shit posting on a wordpress blog, how do you evaluate whether 45 is acting rationally?

    I’m intrigued.

  40. yarpos

    Pro Democrat Drudge?? dont read it very often then?

  41. FelixKruell

    Empire:

    how do you evaluate whether 45 is acting rationally?

    When he speaks inconsistently with his previous words. When he acts inconsistently with his previous words. Pretty strong evidence of irrationality. He’s guided by his instincts and emotions. Not rational thought.

  42. Empire 5:5

    When he speaks inconsistently with his previous words. When he acts inconsistently with his previous words. Pretty strong evidence of irrationality. He’s guided by his instincts and emotions. Not rational thought.

    That’s an assertion. Provide the evidence. No secondary sauce.

  43. FelixKruell

    Empire:

    That’s an assertion.

    Yep it is. And just my view.

    As for evidence, you don’t have to go any further than Trumps press conference on this Ukraine issue when Morrison was there. Go watch it. It’s hilarious.

    All of which takes us further away from the topic. Which is that Trump is accused of campaign finance law breaches. Can’t wait to see that transcript,,,

  44. Fat Tony

    He’s guided by his instincts and emotions. Not rational thought.

    There’s been times where I should have been guided by my instincts and emotions, but chose rational thought instead.
    Better or worse? Depends….

  45. Empire 5:5

    As for evidence, you don’t have to go any further than Trumps press conference on this Ukraine issue when Morrison was there. Go watch it. It’s hilarious.

    It was very entertaining. You do realise he is ridiculing the fake news? You do realise he doesn’t act like that with real people?

  46. Tim Neilson

    Dirt on his likely opponent at the next election.

    Remember, whatever “of value” means, the prohibition covers “accepting” it as well as “soliciting” it. You can’t seriously be saying that it’s illegal for a candidate to be told information by a foreigner.

    As best I recall, not even the Dems suggested that Don Jr did something illegal just by meeting with the supposed purveyor of Russian info on Hillary. Given that that was a damp squib when it was Wussia! Wussia!, are we seriously re-running it in Ukwaine! Ukwaine!?

  47. Alan

    Interesting article: Does Donald Trump Want to Be Impeached?
    And the Democrats may kick themselves into yet another own goal?

  48. Zatara

    As the left has taken pains to point out of late, running for office does not give you some sort of magical cloak of invulnerability regarding your previous criminal activity.

    If evidence exists that Biden committed criminal acts, particularly if he abused his position to do so, then he needs to be investigated, charged and brought to trial. Given Biden has already admitted those criminal acts while bragging about what a tough guy he is Trump would be remiss in his responsibilities as President if he didn’t ensure that investigation happened.

    Suggesting otherwise is ridiculous and sets a very bad precedent for future administrations. The wiser Dems know this and are remaining under cover while the radical left punches itself in the face yet again.

    The result this time should be the end of Biden’s political career if for no other reason than to stop the Dem bleeding. There is however the chance that the Dems are trying to run interference for Biden to make it too uncomfortable to try him ala what they did for Shrillary.

    Bottom line, this too will likely be history by the end of next week because the Dems are masters at pretending events that go against them never happened. Personally, I hope Trump and his AG keep it alive until someone on the left finally pays a price for one of their many misdeeds.

  49. Empire 5:5

    Alan
    #3167540, posted on September 25, 2019 at 9:46 pm
    Interesting article: Does Donald Trump Want to Be Impeached?
    And the Democrats may kick themselves into yet another own goal?

    Great question, but the NYT article doesn’t answer it. Ross Douthat is boilerplates orange man bad. Their is no rational analysis, only speculative feelz.

  50. FelixKruell

    Fat Tony:

    Better or worse? Depends….

    Agree. Instincts (more so than emotion) can be useful for politicians. We notice the absence of it – Gillard and Turnbull being good examples. But personally I think a Trump takes it too far.

  51. FelixKruell

    Empire:

    It was very entertaining. You do realise he is ridiculing the fake news? You do realise he doesn’t act like that with real people?

    Given his words and tweets are all we can rely on (or do you have a close personal relationship with him, where he treats you differently?) I am just going to have to take him at his word.

  52. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Remember, whatever “of value” means, the prohibition covers “accepting” it as well as “soliciting” it. You can’t seriously be saying that it’s illegal for a candidate to be told information by a foreigner.

    The allegation is active soliciting, not passive accepting. The transcripts will either confirm that, or not.

  53. Muddy

    Clinging mist.
    The activities now are for post-Trump: to ensure that no Trump successor or protege can benefit or provide a political threat to the resurrection of the pre-Trump status quo.

  54. Empire 5:5

    Muddy

    Is that possible? New threats are always emerging.

    Would you settle for destroying the old guard who created this? I’m talking full takedown.

  55. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    As for evidence, you don’t have to go any further than Trumps press conference on this Ukraine issue when Morrison was there. Go watch it. It’s hilarious.

    He’s taking the piss out of *you*.

  56. FelixKruell

    Frank:

    He’s taking the piss out of *you*.

    That’s very sweet of him, but there really was no need for him to pretend to be a lying, rambling old man just for my sake.

  57. Frank Walker from National Tiles

    Now Trump’s guilty because you’re offended by him being sarcastic?

    Please stay at the bar and never get put on the bench you complete and utter maniac.

  58. JC

    The allegation is active soliciting, not passive accepting. The transcripts will either confirm that, or not.

    Yes Kruell, he’s perfectly allowed to. He’s the prez and can do anything any agency is allowed to do. He can be an FBI investigator if he chooses. He can even bring charges against people. The job is very powerful. Shut up.

  59. Zatara

    Realities of impeachment as of today.

    – It takes 218 votes in the House to impeach.
    – There are 235 Democrats in the House with 33 opposed to impeachment.
    – All 199 House Republicans are opposed to impeachment.
    Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Nope.

    But, if Pelosi managed to pull it off in the House:
    – It takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to impeach.
    – There are 53 Republicans in the Senate.
    – There are 47 Democrats and Independents who tend to vote Dem. Not all of them support impeachment.
    Even with possible Senate RINO turncoats like Lee and Romney it just isn’t going to happen.

    None of this is new information and nobody in Washington really believed a true smoking gun was suddenly going to appear so you have to ask yourself why the Dems have spent the last 3 years and masses of political capitol pissing into the wind. More importantly, why do they continue to do so? Target fixation or some deeper mental illness?

  60. Calli:

    And the Super Conservative Dynamic Duo Tag Team will commence in 3…2…
    Seriously.

    Good call, Calli.
    1amp and fucknuckle – less than an hour to stick their arses out of the swamp and make a contribution.

  61. Zatara

    Trump Zalenskyy Transcript

    Totally in bounds.

    Inadvertently or not, and I believe it was just incompetence on their part, the Dems screwed Biden good on this one. Their BS accusations ensured it got maximum coverage.

  62. J.H.

    LoL…. It all fell outta bed for the Democrats today. President Trump released a transcript of his entire conversation with the Ukrainian President….. and pulled the rug out from under their impeachment calls.

    Secondly, there is utter hypocrisy. The Obama asked the Ukrainian President back in 2016 to stop investigating Biden and to investigate Manafort….. The Dems are shameless.

  63. Arky

    WRT Trump, the question is: Did he attempt to bribe, coerce or leverage the Ukraine into an action that benefitted himself. (Specifically for the 2020 election)
    The transcript itself does not answer that clearly one way or the other.
    He asks for an investigation that, depending on the outcome, and the timing of the reveal of the outcome, might have given him ammunition in 2020 against one possible opponent.
    He asked for this immediately after the Ukrainian mentioned military equipment purchase.
    The President’s culpability will depend on the specific timing of events: The suspension of aid, calls between leaders, any progress in investigations or communications between departments, contracts, when Trump camp became aware of whistle blower report, resumption of aid, etc.
    Without a detailed timeline of all these events, it is difficult to make a conclusion.
    Biden’s conduct is irrelevant to these questions.

  64. Empire 5:5

    Surprise, surprise. A big fat nothingburger.

    Losers will continue to be triggered by orange man bad. Retards gotta retard.

  65. Empire 5:5

    Brad Parscale
    @parscale
    In the 24 hours since news of Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment announcement,
    @realDonaldTrump
    ’s campaign &
    @GOP
    have BLOWN OUT fundraising!

    ✅$5 Million combined in 24 hrs
    ✅Donors in all 50 states

    Huge groundswell of support leading to Trump landslide in 2020!
    5:18 AM · Sep 26, 2019

    These are small $ donations.
    Thank you linesmen, thank you ballboys.

  66. FelixKruell

    JC:

    He’s the prez and can do anything any agency is allowed to do. He can be an FBI investigator if he chooses. He can even bring charges against people. The job is very powerful. Shut up.

    Yeah that’s not how it works. As Nixon found out.

  67. Tim Neilson

    The allegation is active soliciting, not passive accepting. The transcripts will either confirm that, or not.

    Epic logic fail.

    Info is either something “of value” in this sense or not.

    If it isn’t there’s no problem either “soliciting” or “accepting” it.

    If it is, then merely accepting it would be a breach of the requirements.

    So if you’re saying that Trump could be in trouble for “soliciting” it then you must be saying that someone else could get into trouble just for “accepting” it.

    Which has been recognised as ludicrous during “Wussia!, Wussia!”, and is no less ludicrous in “Ukwaine! Ukwaine!”.

  68. Andre S

    Trump will survive and win 2020 unless his 6 foot under

  69. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Epic logic fail.

    Hardly. Many laws require a degree of intent to the breach. Hence the difference between soliciting and passively receiving.

  70. Zatara

    He’s the prez and can do anything any agency is allowed to do. He can be an FBI investigator if he chooses. He can even bring charges against people. The job is very powerful. Shut up.

    Yeah that’s not how it works. As Nixon found out.

    Nothing Nixon did is even remotely relevant to this situation. That’s a red herring worthy of monty.

    Yeah, actually it is how it works. The President heads the executive branch of which the Department of Justice is a part. He is charged by the US Constitution with seeing the laws are enforced.

    “The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed…”

    Article II, Section 3, US Constitution

    If Trump wants Biden investigated for breaking the law then Biden gets investigated. If Biden is found guilty and it hurts his chances for election then he should have thought of that before he broke the law. Opposition candidates don’t rate exception to the law just because they are opposition candidates.

  71. FelixKruell

    Zatara:

    If Trump wants Biden investigated for breaking the law then Biden gets investigated. If Biden is found guilty and it hurts his chances for election then he should have thought of that before he broke the law.

    Sure. By the Department of Justice. Not the Ukraine. In exercising his power, the president remains subject to the laws and the constitution of the United States. That’s where the Nixon parallel is relevant.

  72. stackja

    FK – You are dreaming. Nothing happened. Nothing will happen.

  73. Zatara

    There is no Nixon parallel.

    Nothing in the laws of the US or their Constitution prevents US investigators from coordinating with foreign governments and agencies. Nor is there anything that prevents the US President from requesting assistance from a foreign leader in those investigations.

    If what you suggest was true there would be no US participation in INTERPOL for one. Or Five Eyes if you want to extend this to the intelligence field.

    As to some implied differentiation between the President and the various agencies of the executive branch (such as the AG or DoJ):

    The President, in the exercise of his executive power under the Constitution, “speaks and acts through the heads of the several departments in relation to subjects which appertain to their respective duties.” The heads of the departments are his authorized assistants in the performance of his executive duties, and their official acts, promulgated in the regular course of business, are presumptively his acts. Wilcox v. McConnel, 38 U.S. (13 Pet.) 498, 513 (1839).

  74. Tim Neilson

    Hardly. Many laws require a degree of intent to the breach. Hence the difference between soliciting and passively receiving.

    But in this case there is no difference. The rule clearly applies to things “of value” being either solicited or accepted. So if you’re insisting that the rule can proscribe “soliciting” info it must also proscribe “accepting” info.

    Which no-one believes except, it seems, you.

  75. littledozer

    The allegation is active soliciting, not passive accepting. The transcripts will either confirm that, or not.

    I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you’re surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.

    Considering the call is the day after Mueller gave his testimony then as can be seen above, Biden is the sideshow to the whole game, which is around Crowdstrike and how they investigated the hack of the DNC server and NO report was ever given to the FBI or DOJ.

    Those institutions just took the word of the Crowdstrike and the DNC and proceeded with the Russia narrative, to this day we have no evidence that Russia hacked the DNC.

    The hack was purported as the evidence that Putin helped put Trump in the WH.

    Don’t you think Trump is well within his rights as President to pursue evidence around the claim Russia hacked the DNC to benefit Trump?

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/25/its-not-about-biden-deep-state-response-to-ukraine-call-now-makes-sense-trump-questioned-crowdstrike/#more-171925

  76. FelixKruell

    Zatara:

    Nor is there anything that prevents the US President from requesting assistance from a foreign leader in those investigations.

    Of course not. Except trump didn’t actually initiate an investigation. Nor did Barr.

    What he did do is ask a foreign government for ‘a favour’ that would harm a potential rival in an election, with the suggestion this would lead to more aid by the US in return. If proven, that would be against the law.

  77. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    But in this case there is no difference.

    Most laws don’t overtly require intention, but it’s nevertheless part of the test for conviction. Especially in cases where the law as written would capture too many passive or otherwise innocent actions.

    You seem to be arguing that this entire campaign finance law is ineffective because it would capture people passively receiving things of value from foreigners. Purely so that you don’t have to admit that their might be a case that Trump has breached that law, by actively soliciting. Strange.

  78. littledozer

    What he did do is ask a foreign government for ‘a favour’ that would harm a potential rival in an election, with the suggestion this would lead to more aid by the US in return.

    Can you not read the above quote from the transcript?

    He asked for a favour in relation to Crowdstrike. Care to comment on your opinion regarding his entitlement to pursue that issue as it goes to the heart of the allegations that Putin helped Trump win the election.

  79. Zatara

    Of course not. Except trump didn’t actually initiate an investigation. Nor did Barr.

    It doesn’t matter at all who initiated the investigation. That’s another red herring.

    Nor do we know what investigation(s) might already have been in progress.

    Trump neither linked the aid to the investigative assistance nor threatened to in any way. Interestingly, Biden admitted that he had done both, which is why he’s getting investigated.

    You appear to be suggesting that Biden can’t be investigated or charged because he is a political candidate. That’s incorrect. To quote an earlier post, “Just ask Nixon”.

    If the Dems want to waste more legislative time any money on this, not to mention piss more voters off, then more power to them. The longer it goes on the more it hurts them.

  80. stackja

    Zatara – Dems reassure all, they are above reproach. Who we mere mortals can question them?

  81. FelixKruell

    Little:

    He asked for a favour in relation to Crowdstrike.

    And Biden. Neither of which a Trump is investigating. Nor Barr or Giuliani.

  82. Can you not read the above quote from the transcript?

    Don’t waste your time Dozer. Once addled with TDS, there is no helping fuckwits.
    I just saw clip after clip of MSM narrative spinners completely ignore Trump asking Ukraine for assistance in investigating Crowdstrike and the origins of the muh Russia saga.
    Unlike FK’s claim, the Trump DOJ is…is is is investigating the origins of the Russia hoax Barr and Durham).
    Trump has every right to ask, especially since it has been revealed that the Clinton admin signed a mutual crime investigation agreement with the Ukrainians back in the 90’s.
    Trump had an obligation and duty to ask for assistance.

    TDS deranged hacks like FK ignore the inconvenient.

  83. Tim Neilson

    You seem to be arguing that this entire campaign finance law is ineffective because it would capture people passively receiving things of value from foreigners

    Absolutely not. Where did I say that? That’s rubbish. I never suggested that someone accepting an Aldi bag full of cash wouldn’t be caught.

    What I was pointing out is that if the concept of what’s “of value” includes mere information, then a mere recipient of information would be caught, which is why mere information isn’t covered by the rule – whether in relation to “accepting” or “soliciting”.

    Purely so that you don’t have to admit that their might be a case that Trump has breached that law, by actively soliciting. Strange.

    Rubbish. I never said that “actively soliciting” couldn’t be caught – but it’s all about what Trump is alleged to have solicited. Mere info. Which can’t be and isn’t covered, unless mere receipt of info is covered.

    Poor old Felix, totally unable to comprehend basic logic.

  84. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3167780, posted on September 26, 2019 at 9:06 am

    JC:

    He’s the prez and can do anything any agency is allowed to do. He can be an FBI investigator if he chooses. He can even bring charges against people. The job is very powerful. Shut up.

    Yeah that’s not how it works. As Nixon found out.

    Stop being a hallucinating dildo, Kruell. It’s nothing like Nixon. This is unsurpassed level of idiocy outside of the open forum.

  85. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    What I was pointing out is that if the concept of what’s “of value” includes mere information, then a mere recipient of information would be caught, which is why mere information isn’t covered by the rule – whether in relation to “accepting” or “soliciting”.

    The mere receipt of money would also be caught…or is that also okay in your book?

    Mere info. Which can’t be and isn’t covered, unless mere receipt of info is covered.

    Actually, Mueller concluded that mere info can be covered.

  86. FelixKruell

    Baa:

    Unlike FK’s claim, the Trump DOJ is…is is is investigating the origins of the Russia hoax Barr and Durham).

    And your evidence of this is…

  87. stackja

    FK still believes the Dems can do no wrong?

  88. Why are you all treating FucKnuckle as an honest broker?

  89. Tim Neilson

    The mere receipt of money would also be caught…or is that also okay in your book?

    Yeeees! That’s what I said!!!! Quote – “I never suggested that someone accepting an Aldi bag full of cash wouldn’t be caught.” Is that too complex for you?

    Actually, Mueller concluded that mere info can be covered.

    Sorry, Mueller doesn’t get to say what the law is. Very clearly it isn’t, because no-one has ever denied that Don Jr met with a supposed Russian precisely to get info, and even the Dems aren’t demanding that he be charged for that.

  90. Empire 5:5

    WB report was released by the WH to the House Intel Comm today and will be made public shortly.

    The claim centres on one phone call, the one for which the transcript was declassified and released earlier today.

  91. Empire 5:5

    How anyone can fall for this shit in 2019 is beyond me. Hypergullibility

  92. FelixKruell

    Stjacka:

    FK still believes the Dems can do no wrong?

    Please show me a single quote suggesting I believe that…just one.

    I don’t defend Biden. If he has done what has been alleged, he should go down.

  93. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Yeeees! That’s what I said!!!! Quote – “I never suggested that someone accepting an Aldi bag full of cash wouldn’t be caught.” Is that too complex for you?

    So you think the law catches passive receipt of cash, but not passive receipt of information? What was that about logic?

    Sorry, Mueller doesn’t get to say what the law is. Very clearly it isn’t, because no-one has ever denied that Don Jr met with a supposed Russian precisely to get info, and even the Dems aren’t demanding that he be charged for that.

    He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer. And it seems plenty of others agree with him too. Best way to test it is to take it to court…and actually the Democrats did want Don Jr to be charged for that exact crime. You really should pay for attention.

  94. Tim Neilson

    So you think the law catches passive receipt of cash, but not passive receipt of information? What was that about logic?

    That’s the whole point of what I’ve said all along! At law information is not a form of property. A statute about soliciting or accepting something “of value” needn’t apply to being told something. Why would there be a prohibition on a candidate becoming better informed?

    So, where’s your actual authority that information is covered?

    He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer. And it seems plenty of others agree with him too.

    English translation – there’s no such authority. As you seem, reluctantly, to admit…

    Best way to test it is to take it to court…

    Why? As I understand it there is US authority on the concept of “anything of value” which suggests that things which aren’t actually money, goods or services, like public endorsements, don’t count. Sure, it’s possible that if Don Jr were prosecuted those authorities mightn’t be applied, but generally charges aren’t laid on the basis that existing precedents might be altered so as to convict the defendant.

    and actually the Democrats did want Don Jr to be charged for that exact crime

    I said they “aren’t” asking for it. They’ve dropped it, no doubt realising how hopeless it is.

    You ought to follow your own advice….

    You really should pay for attention.

    (I don’t normally comment on typos but this one’s just too hilarious.)

  95. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    At law information is not a form of property

    Oh Tim. Poor Tim. Google ‘intellectual property’

  96. Empire 5:5

    He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer.

    James ‘Whitey’ Bulger.

    Coincidently, Whitey’s nephew and namesake, James Bulger, partnered with Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz for pay to play.

  97. FelixKruell
    #3168181, posted on September 26, 2019 at 4:35 pm

    Baa:

    Unlike FK’s claim, the Trump DOJ is…is is is investigating the origins of the Russia hoax Barr and Durham).

    And your evidence of this is…

    Are you serious?
    It’s common knowledge that Barr is looking into how the Russia hoax started. He testified as much and his investigator Durham is zeroing in on Ukraine.
    Get out from under that rock Felix.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/u-s-attorney-john-durham-looking-into-ukrainian-involvement-in-2016-election

    FTA
    The Justice Department revealed that U.S. Attorney John Durham, picked by Attorney General William Barr to look into the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, is investigating whether Ukraine was involved in any 2016 election efforts.

    “A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said Wednesday. “While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating.”

    FMD, if you’re this far out of the loop, maybe you should sit this one out.

  98. FelixKruell

    Baa:

    How convenient.

    Any evidence of that investigation reported BEFORE this became a crucial issue thanks to that call?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.